DISCLAIMER: This isn't really a different perspective: it's the same as Michael Crichton's, expounded in "State of Fear". Which is why a lot of the ideas and statistics are his. They belong to him. Please don't sue me...I have no money.
A/N: I wrote this as a contest entry for "Changes in Environment and Life on Earth" for my school mag, and just got the urge to publish it, and get impartial reviews. So please review?
A Different Perspective
It is a widely accepted fact that humanity is ruining the Earth.
With the glaring evidence staring us right in the eye, who would doubt it? Every morning, we only have to open the newspaper to be bombarded with more news about the pollution, global warming, and extinction of life-forms, deforestation and a whole host of other problems caused by destructive human activities all around the world. We're unable to conform to the natural cycles in nature, and by modifying them to suit our own ends; we're bringing about a slow but steady destruction of all life on Earth, including ourselves.
The message is clear: if we don't clean up our act, and soon, we're going to have to face the consequences, and pay dearly for our sins.
But is this really true? Are all those statistics about the rising global temperatures (global temperatures are expected to rise by 1-3.5o C by the year 2100, causing a 20 inch increase in sea level) and the extinction of species (upto half of presently existing species might become extinct by 2100, due to the increase in the numbers and range of humans) absolute, verifiable fact?
These facts are brought to us, not by independent, impartial research that is the hallmark of true science, but by a growing, disturbing prevalence of "consensus" science. Consensus science can be summed up thus: a lot of people think so, therefore it must be true.
The vast majority of scientists today believe that global temperatures are indeed rising, that this could have catastrophic effects such as flooding of low-lying coastal areas, extreme weather events (such as cyclones) , changes in the timing of seasonal patterns in ecosystems, spread of tropical diseases and altered agricultural patterns. On the other hand, doomsday movies such as The Day After Tomorrow predict rather… unexpected consequences.
It is a disturbing feature of the imprecise science of global warming, that articles published in scientific journals and movies like The Day After Tomorrow are treated as being on the same level of scientific credibility by the common man.
However, the vast majority of these predictions are made using computer climate models, and they have not been verified using facts from the real world. How could they be? There is no way we could go forward a hundred years into the future and record global temperatures, or go back a thousand years into the past and compare how low the temperature was then.
But complex systems, such as global weather, depend on a staggering number of variables. There is no way we can take all of these into account while creating a model, since a lot of them are unknown.
For example, one of the basic factors influencing this is world population (directly linked to Carbon dioxide emissions and so forth). In the years 1990-1995 world population increased by an astounding 10. It was believed that it would keep on growing, and anyone doubting that fact then would be deemed intellectually challenged. And yet today we know that the fertility rate is actually declining, and there is strong evidence that this was the case going back twenty years.
If we cannot even predict the rate of increase or decrease of world population, how can we even begin to take into account the millions of other factors that climate depends on? Are these "alarming" computer models really a cause for alarm?
And furthermore, is it really a sound investment to invest and plan and prepare for something that might happen a hundred years in the future? Especially since technology is advancing at such an alarming rate. For instance, would someone living in the 1900s know what the computer I am typing this right now is? Or understand the concept of the internet, or know what protons, neutrons, the ecosystem, radios, televisions, viruses, genes and nuclear energy are?
If they had made a prediction about how some of their actions were going to affect us in the year 2000, could they really have anticipated how we would deal with it, with our vastly different technology and way of thinking?
We are in the same position regarding the year 2100. We have no idea what energy sources they're going to be using…but it's unlikely to be fossil fuels, wouldn't you say?
Another form of destruction that human beings are often accused of is causing the extinction of species and the depletion of biodiversity. We're taught in school about the fragility of ecosystems, how even the smallest alteration can have massive consequences for the various flora and fauna that live in a delicate interconnected web. How humanity is messing up this delicate balance on a daily basis and causing extinction on a massive scale, perhaps even leading to the extinction of half the current species on Earth by the year 2100. How perhaps global warming is the biggest threat to life on Earth, as it messes up this delicate balance on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
How we may cause the End of All Life on Earth.
However, this proposed extinction event, known as the Holocene extinction event, is actually the sixth such event to take place since life began on earth.
The fifth, known as the Cretaceous- Tertiary extinction event has enormous significance for humans: it led to the extinction of dinosaurs (and about 60 of all other species on Earth) and paved the way for mammals, and humans to take over.
One of the earliest known extinction events, known as the Oxygen Catastrophe, took place about 2.5 Billion years ago, and was caused by a species of cyano bacteria that released and incredibly poisonous gas, highly toxic to the all the anaerobic organisms which were the main life-forms at the time.
Was this the "End of All Life on Earth"? This poisonous gas was called oxygen, and this so-called destruction paved the way for the evolution of all aerobic life-forms including us.
The Holocene extinction event is merely the next step in the great cycle of life on Earth, and who knows what consequences it could have?
Throughout history, life on Earth has changed and evolved to keep up with changes in the environment. Humanity is perhaps unique in that it does not have to evolve physically to deal with these changes, but can create tools to help them with this task.
This does not change the fact that we are still a part of the ecosystem, rather than separate from it, and cannot do more harm in the great scheme of things than, say, a Bengal Tiger, or a tree frog can.
Today, it's fashionable among celebrities and common men to talk about global warming and environmentalism. But we are yet to see someone actually switching off an unnecessary light, or buying a small car instead of a gas-guzzling 4-Wheel drive, for the sake of the environment. Celebrities fly around the world on their private jets, giving talks on reducing fuel consumption and the need for not overexploiting resources.
If talking doesn't solve any problems in the fields of medicine and engineering, who's to say that it will in the field of climatology?
This is not to say that environmentalism is not important. It would be nice to not have to breathe in smoky fumes on going out into the street. It would be nice to enjoy the sheer scale and vibrancy of life in the Amazon rainforest. It would be nice to have rivers and lakes free of greasy, slimy effluents.
However, it is just vanity to believe that human beings are the guardians of the world. We are not the protectors of the colossal, complex ecosystem.
We're just a part of it.